This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/may/21/dailymail-boris
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Judges say knowing about philandering Boris is in the public interest | Judges say knowing about philandering Boris is in the public interest |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The Daily Mail carries a front page picture today of Boris Johnson, London's mayor, with a caption-headline saying: "Boris and the lovechild he now can't keep secret." | The Daily Mail carries a front page picture today of Boris Johnson, London's mayor, with a caption-headline saying: "Boris and the lovechild he now can't keep secret." |
| Inside is a full-page article explaining why the judges agreed that the secret should be revealed. Here's the intro: | Inside is a full-page article explaining why the judges agreed that the secret should be revealed. Here's the intro: |
| "The public does have a right to know about Boris Johnson's philandering past, the appeal court confirmed. | "The public does have a right to know about Boris Johnson's philandering past, the appeal court confirmed. |
| That succinct sentence is a true reflection of the judgment, which supported the original ruling by a high court judge, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, that the Mail was justified in publishing stories about Johnson's illegitimate child because his extramarital affairs called into question his fitness for public office. | That succinct sentence is a true reflection of the judgment, which supported the original ruling by a high court judge, Mrs Justice Nicola Davies, that the Mail was justified in publishing stories about Johnson's illegitimate child because his extramarital affairs called into question his fitness for public office. |
| Indeed, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Dyson, was so convinced by this argument that he repeated it in the concluding paragraph of his judgment. He said: | Indeed, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Dyson, was so convinced by this argument that he repeated it in the concluding paragraph of his judgment. He said: |
| "It is not in dispute that the legitimate public interest in the father's character is an important factor to be weighed in the balance against the claimant's expectation of privacy. | "It is not in dispute that the legitimate public interest in the father's character is an important factor to be weighed in the balance against the claimant's expectation of privacy. |
| The core information in this story, namely that the father had an adulterous affair with the mother, deceiving both his wife and the mother's partner and that the claimant, born about nine months later, was likely to be the father's child, was a public interest matter which the electorate was entitled to know when considering his fitness for high public office." | The core information in this story, namely that the father had an adulterous affair with the mother, deceiving both his wife and the mother's partner and that the claimant, born about nine months later, was likely to be the father's child, was a public interest matter which the electorate was entitled to know when considering his fitness for high public office." |
| The two judges sitting with him agreed. So we now know that Johnson's affair with an art consultant, Helen Macintyre, resulted in the birth of a girl named Stephanie in November 2009. (Well, we knew it long ago, but this judgment confirms that the paper is legally ok to publish the fact). | The two judges sitting with him agreed. So we now know that Johnson's affair with an art consultant, Helen Macintyre, resulted in the birth of a girl named Stephanie in November 2009. (Well, we knew it long ago, but this judgment confirms that the paper is legally ok to publish the fact). |
| At the original trial, the Mail's publishers, Associated Newspapers, were ordered to pay £15,000 for publishing photographs of Stephanie, thereby breaching her privacy. | At the original trial, the Mail's publishers, Associated Newspapers, were ordered to pay £15,000 for publishing photographs of Stephanie, thereby breaching her privacy. |
| But the child's legal backers were required to pay 80% of the Mail's legal costs, which were estimated at £200,000. | But the child's legal backers were required to pay 80% of the Mail's legal costs, which were estimated at £200,000. |
| Macintyre's side appealed against the decision not to award her damages because the Mail published details of her affair with Johnson and about the birth of their child. It is that appeal the court rejected. | |
| Given the fact that four experienced judges have unequivocally supported the paper's public interest justification for running its story, it would be odd for any journalist to question the merits of their argument. I certainly don't intend to do so. | Given the fact that four experienced judges have unequivocally supported the paper's public interest justification for running its story, it would be odd for any journalist to question the merits of their argument. I certainly don't intend to do so. |
| What strikes me about the case is that it tends to prove that politicians of a certain stripe and character can rise above the embarrassment, as did two past Tory philanders, Alan Clark and Steven Norris. | What strikes me about the case is that it tends to prove that politicians of a certain stripe and character can rise above the embarrassment, as did two past Tory philanders, Alan Clark and Steven Norris. |
| So it probably won't matter at all to Johnson's future electoral chances - whenever and wherever he stands - because his philandering appears not to bother people over much. | So it probably won't matter at all to Johnson's future electoral chances - whenever and wherever he stands - because his philandering appears not to bother people over much. |
| The Mail may well feel that it should have an impact on voters' decision-making and, doubtless, should the Tories dare to elect Johnson as party leader (and potential prime minister) the paper would warn their readers to beware of Boris. | The Mail may well feel that it should have an impact on voters' decision-making and, doubtless, should the Tories dare to elect Johnson as party leader (and potential prime minister) the paper would warn their readers to beware of Boris. |
| That scenario is so full of journalistically sexy possibilities, one can hardly wait. | That scenario is so full of journalistically sexy possibilities, one can hardly wait. |